View Poll Results: What do you think about arming pilots?
Useful addition to the prevetion of hijacking
139
20.14%
Useless. They should concentrate on getting the aircraft on the ground
465
67.39%
I think our (non US) pilots should also be armed
95
13.77%
I have no opinion
16
2.32%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 690. This poll is closed
Armed Pilots (Merged)
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This guns on Flight Decks issue really brings out the woolly headed thinkers. Wake up people! Get real and smell the air! Give me a gun and I can guarantee that no hijackers take me over and kill everybody on board and several thousand on the ground too. The hijacking game has changed! It's a lot more serious now, and if there is an attacker on the FD, then the danger of an accidental discharge of the weapon is neither here nor there! It's a 'last resort' defence. It's not going to be waved around on the FD like a toy, but anybody entering the FD with box cutters/Stanley knives should have several holes blown into them- it's the only way to save many many lives. I can't believe the naivety of some of the 'instant' experts who feel so much need to pass an out-of-date opinion in Pprune with no expert knowledge! Wake up! The world has changed.
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Camp X-Ray
Posts: 2,135
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Give me a gun and I can guarantee that no hijackers take me over and kill everybody on board
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well said "Not so fantastic"
Hand Solo, if the cockpit was rushed and you had no time to draw your weapon before your throat was cut?
If you had no weapon this would happen to you anyway!
Whats your point?
Mr. Slingsby,
You state that you will not fly on a US carrier again due to security or lack of such.
Perhaps you should try our bus system on your next visit!
Sure that you will feel safe and very impressed.
Hand Solo, if the cockpit was rushed and you had no time to draw your weapon before your throat was cut?
If you had no weapon this would happen to you anyway!
Whats your point?
Mr. Slingsby,
You state that you will not fly on a US carrier again due to security or lack of such.
Perhaps you should try our bus system on your next visit!
Sure that you will feel safe and very impressed.
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: UK
Posts: 1,914
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
So HS, the point is? If the FD is rushed, you are in an aeroplane of dead people. What harm does a gun do then? Nobody can rush the FD without having to get a Cabin Crew member out of the way first. It gives you that instant when they can then find a rather large barrel pointing at them. Part of the responsibility of carrying a weapon is to prevent it needlessly being lost. It must be quickly available when needed. When you talk of the FD being rushed, you are on a last chance defence. The only viable alternative is a self destruct button.
Notso Fantastic.
Over the last few months, airlines around the world have been bending over backwards to fit these phase two doors to flight decks.
Is the US government now suggesting that actually, these doors are worthless and can't to the job they were designed for? If so, lets go back to the old system, which was a hell of a lot safer in other situations.
Also, I may be misunderstanding the events of Sept 11th, but I thought the airlines involved had a locked flight deck door policy and it was only the fact that the door was opened that allowed the events to transire as they did.
Allowing the pilots to have a gun may allow the pilots to go down in a blaze of glory, but the end result will still be an aircraft full of dead passengers. Lets keep guns away from airside.
Over the last few months, airlines around the world have been bending over backwards to fit these phase two doors to flight decks.
Is the US government now suggesting that actually, these doors are worthless and can't to the job they were designed for? If so, lets go back to the old system, which was a hell of a lot safer in other situations.
Also, I may be misunderstanding the events of Sept 11th, but I thought the airlines involved had a locked flight deck door policy and it was only the fact that the door was opened that allowed the events to transire as they did.
Allowing the pilots to have a gun may allow the pilots to go down in a blaze of glory, but the end result will still be an aircraft full of dead passengers. Lets keep guns away from airside.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: UTC +8
Posts: 2,626
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hello Captain Earl: USAF transport pilots usually fly from one heavily secured Air Force Base to another; they don't carry civilian pax, they don't exit their base with sidearms, they don't commute to the downtown Marriott for layovers, and they don't go through the baggage drill at airport screening stations.
OK you pro gun American airmen, then why not allow law abiding registered firearm holders to travel on your aeroplane with their guns then? Arming commercial pilots is just about the most insane thing since George Bush. It will in time cause more problems then it's intended to solve. The USA is being systematically destroyed - from within!
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: USA
Posts: 844
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As I stated earlier the guns are left secured on the aircraft at non military bases.
Aircrews do stay downtown when the local bases are full.
The civilian bag drill is done only on rare occasions such as picking up Nat gaurd troops at civilian airports.
For you Anti-Gun people do you see an alternative here?Since we are having this discussion maybe some of you have a better idea
for FD security.
I dont agree with many things happening in the USA, but in time things will mellow out.
FD security is one thing that we are determined to protect.
The point being made here is that its not a accident waiting on a place to happen.
If further hijackings could be prevented then maybe the public would trust air travel again.
For this we would all benefit.
Aircrews do stay downtown when the local bases are full.
The civilian bag drill is done only on rare occasions such as picking up Nat gaurd troops at civilian airports.
For you Anti-Gun people do you see an alternative here?Since we are having this discussion maybe some of you have a better idea
for FD security.
I dont agree with many things happening in the USA, but in time things will mellow out.
FD security is one thing that we are determined to protect.
The point being made here is that its not a accident waiting on a place to happen.
If further hijackings could be prevented then maybe the public would trust air travel again.
For this we would all benefit.
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: UK
Posts: 22
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's fair to argue that Americans hold gun culture in a rather different light to the rest of the world. Of course, it is part of their Constution that they have the right to bear arms; their whole history has been cut and shaped by personal weaponry. It's very much part of their life.
Just look at what has been happening in Iraq. American soldiers were opening fire on vehicles that refused to stop at checkpoints. Children were killed. British military personnel said that they would let such vehicles through rather than open fire - 'it's just not worth it', said one spokesperson. American tanks had daubings on their hardware such as, 'this is for the NYPD', and 'this is for 9/11'. I saw one marine telling an Iraqi civilian protester that he was the one with the gun, so back off! Guns, guns, explosives, bombs and guns. Take that, punk! It's the culture and it's been fuelled by Hollywood. No one else in the world has such a pumped up belief in their own military and how capable it is of kicking arse. A military reputation created by Hollywood, and the army's own rhetoric, rather than by actual combat successes.
It's a unique culture, the American one; one we either admire or loathe. Either way it's contrived an end to a worldwide problem of airline terrorism, a uniquely American end.
Forget the movies. Have you actually been involved in a physical fight, or perhaps witnessed one? There's tremendous confusion. A surprise attack on anyone is likely to provoke momentary paralysis in the victim. There is always a shock factor that make 'surprise' attack so effective. That's why they are used!
The number one has just opened the flight deck door, he or she has a cup of coffee in one hand, a menu in the other, say. Passenger X on the front row rushes the door. Coffee spues forward, the pilot flays his arms as the hot liquid splashes him and the instruments. The no 1 falls on the the centre console, the first officer moves to catch her, let's say. There is shock and confusion for both pilots and for the no 1. But not for the hijacker. He is on control. He has so much time to subdue the pilots before they recover from the initial shock that it's slowtime for him. The pilots are barely aware of his being there. By the time the rest of the crew, or passengers react, the hijacker has at least one gun in his hand.
We in England - where guns are so low profile that regular police officers do not carry them - cannot understand the American decision to allow pilots to carry them. For their part, the Americans - living where guns are part of the legend - cannot understand our horror at this decision. But can we all agree that the money being used to train these pilots could be better spent at keeping potential hijackers off aircraft in the first place. If the hijacker doesn't have a gun, then I doubt he or she would be able to defend him or herself against todays post 9/11 passenger.
Come on guys, you're getting far to cocky for world peace to prevail. Democracy means accepting that there are countries whom are not going to subscribe to your American ideal - countries with 'anti-American views'. Learn to live with it; it could temper the terrorist hardline against you.
Just look at what has been happening in Iraq. American soldiers were opening fire on vehicles that refused to stop at checkpoints. Children were killed. British military personnel said that they would let such vehicles through rather than open fire - 'it's just not worth it', said one spokesperson. American tanks had daubings on their hardware such as, 'this is for the NYPD', and 'this is for 9/11'. I saw one marine telling an Iraqi civilian protester that he was the one with the gun, so back off! Guns, guns, explosives, bombs and guns. Take that, punk! It's the culture and it's been fuelled by Hollywood. No one else in the world has such a pumped up belief in their own military and how capable it is of kicking arse. A military reputation created by Hollywood, and the army's own rhetoric, rather than by actual combat successes.
It's a unique culture, the American one; one we either admire or loathe. Either way it's contrived an end to a worldwide problem of airline terrorism, a uniquely American end.
Forget the movies. Have you actually been involved in a physical fight, or perhaps witnessed one? There's tremendous confusion. A surprise attack on anyone is likely to provoke momentary paralysis in the victim. There is always a shock factor that make 'surprise' attack so effective. That's why they are used!
The number one has just opened the flight deck door, he or she has a cup of coffee in one hand, a menu in the other, say. Passenger X on the front row rushes the door. Coffee spues forward, the pilot flays his arms as the hot liquid splashes him and the instruments. The no 1 falls on the the centre console, the first officer moves to catch her, let's say. There is shock and confusion for both pilots and for the no 1. But not for the hijacker. He is on control. He has so much time to subdue the pilots before they recover from the initial shock that it's slowtime for him. The pilots are barely aware of his being there. By the time the rest of the crew, or passengers react, the hijacker has at least one gun in his hand.
We in England - where guns are so low profile that regular police officers do not carry them - cannot understand the American decision to allow pilots to carry them. For their part, the Americans - living where guns are part of the legend - cannot understand our horror at this decision. But can we all agree that the money being used to train these pilots could be better spent at keeping potential hijackers off aircraft in the first place. If the hijacker doesn't have a gun, then I doubt he or she would be able to defend him or herself against todays post 9/11 passenger.
Come on guys, you're getting far to cocky for world peace to prevail. Democracy means accepting that there are countries whom are not going to subscribe to your American ideal - countries with 'anti-American views'. Learn to live with it; it could temper the terrorist hardline against you.
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: uk
Posts: 182
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earl! I don't reckon this is an anti-American thing! You seem to be taking it personally. I think Hand Solo's point was that the hijackers cut your throat, sleal the gun, and then play with the plane.
It's a bit of a tricky one but I reckon aeroplanes should remain gun free. Seems to add a risk where there wasn't one before. America is comfortable with guns on all other modes of transport, for staff and passengers. Don't think we are as comfortable over here in the UK. Hate the dammed things myself. They are the work of the devil (I know Earl. I'm a wuss!!!). Guns give people too much power and power tends to go to peoples heads. It's too easy to use power unwisely. Look at all powerful people (particularly heads of state eg Sadam, Bush, Blair. Cheats and liars the lot of them). In all honesty, Earl sounds like he is honest, respects and takes pride in his weapon and the power it gives him and understands its implications, but not everyone is like him. Thats what scares me.
It's a bit of a tricky one but I reckon aeroplanes should remain gun free. Seems to add a risk where there wasn't one before. America is comfortable with guns on all other modes of transport, for staff and passengers. Don't think we are as comfortable over here in the UK. Hate the dammed things myself. They are the work of the devil (I know Earl. I'm a wuss!!!). Guns give people too much power and power tends to go to peoples heads. It's too easy to use power unwisely. Look at all powerful people (particularly heads of state eg Sadam, Bush, Blair. Cheats and liars the lot of them). In all honesty, Earl sounds like he is honest, respects and takes pride in his weapon and the power it gives him and understands its implications, but not everyone is like him. Thats what scares me.
After all the hijackings in the 1970s security precautions were put in place to stop it happening again ,did they work ?
I'm all in favour of better screening of passengers ,improved X ray machines etc , but as a last line of defence WHEN the hijackers have managed to bypass all this new security I want the option of shooting them myself in order to save the aircraft.
Minimum wage security guards regularly carry firearms ,why not highly trained pilots.
Sure the procedures for carrying guns around will be complicated and expensive ,but surely simpler and cheaper than the clean up of the World Trade Center.
Everybody goes on about headlines resulting from accidental discharge or a passenger being shot ,how about "Hijack Foiled -Armed Pilot Saves Aircraft"
If you had been flying the BA jumbo with the deranged man struggling with the controls going through 110 degrees of bank would you like to have been able to shoot to defend yourself ?
Glock make some lovely sub compact semi automatic pistols and I will be carrying one as soon as it is legal for me to do so.
PS Off to the firing range after lunch.
I'm all in favour of better screening of passengers ,improved X ray machines etc , but as a last line of defence WHEN the hijackers have managed to bypass all this new security I want the option of shooting them myself in order to save the aircraft.
Minimum wage security guards regularly carry firearms ,why not highly trained pilots.
Sure the procedures for carrying guns around will be complicated and expensive ,but surely simpler and cheaper than the clean up of the World Trade Center.
Everybody goes on about headlines resulting from accidental discharge or a passenger being shot ,how about "Hijack Foiled -Armed Pilot Saves Aircraft"
If you had been flying the BA jumbo with the deranged man struggling with the controls going through 110 degrees of bank would you like to have been able to shoot to defend yourself ?
Glock make some lovely sub compact semi automatic pistols and I will be carrying one as soon as it is legal for me to do so.
PS Off to the firing range after lunch.
Some more money for Capt PPRuNe
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Ici
Age: 56
Posts: 271
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't hold any strong views on the subject myself - I can see arguments for and against.
Is it not the case though now, that the suicidal hijacker will now that he "knows" that the pilots are armed attempt to take out both of them somehow (a smuggled weapon, maybe), when previously he might not have done, thus denying the pilots the <slender> chance for them to regain control?
FF
Is it not the case though now, that the suicidal hijacker will now that he "knows" that the pilots are armed attempt to take out both of them somehow (a smuggled weapon, maybe), when previously he might not have done, thus denying the pilots the <slender> chance for them to regain control?
FF
Last edited by Fujiflyer; 20th Apr 2003 at 23:47.
Join Date: Mar 2000
Location: Arizona USA
Posts: 8,571
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shootout at the OK (cockpit) corral...
Interesting discussion on the Phoenix area radio a few weeks ago.
A UAL Captain calls in (from his mobile phone while driving to the airport) and defends his 'right' to be armed. Radio host asks...'excuse me Captain, but suppose the co-pilot is armed as well, and you have a disagreement with him. What will you do?'
UAL Captain replies...."I would shoot the son of a bitch".
This is exactly what was said, true story. Could not believe my ears.
Personal opinion...armed pilots are a COMPLETE waste of time, period.
A UAL Captain calls in (from his mobile phone while driving to the airport) and defends his 'right' to be armed. Radio host asks...'excuse me Captain, but suppose the co-pilot is armed as well, and you have a disagreement with him. What will you do?'
UAL Captain replies...."I would shoot the son of a bitch".
This is exactly what was said, true story. Could not believe my ears.
Personal opinion...armed pilots are a COMPLETE waste of time, period.
Join Date: Apr 2002
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Minimum wage security guards regularly carry firearms ,why not highly trained pilots.
Pilots with guns scares the hell out of me, I know enough about guns to have see the damage they can cause.
The last thing I would want to see is an armed shot out between some terrorist who is prepared to die and a pilot who thinks he is John Wayne.
Besides, Arming a pilot is one thing, How the hell is he supposed to go up against a gang of armed terrorists?
What happens if the terrorist takes a hostage?
What happens if one of the 'innocent passengers' turns out to be a terrorist and tackles the pilot who is playing john bloody wayne?
As highly trained as a pilot may be, There is a lot more to taking down a terrorist than pulling the trigger.
PLEASE, Leave the counter terrorism and any shoting to the people who are HIGHLY TRAINED to do this, they would never think about telling you how to do your job so please don't assume you can down a terrorist like they do on the movies.
Gary.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Cowboys!
Blimey, glad I was sitting down when reading 411A's last post, both for the radio phone-in story 
and for his (unexpected!) views on guns in the cockpit! Good for you, Sir - it's not often I agree with you, but 100% with you this time!!
A few thoughts:
When (& where) are these gun-toting Wyatt Earps (Earpesses) going to load (& unload) their little toys?
Will they be allowed to have a round fed into the chamber at all stages of flight?
What ammunition will be cleared for use?
What recurrent training will they have to do?
What if the other (unarmed) pilot says "No way, I don't want to fly with a gun in the cockpit"?
Don't want to know the security system, but how is TSA going to handle this at security checkpoints?
Oh well, time to take the kevlar vest out of storage & give it some frequent flyer miles when hopping around on internal USA flights!! Bet the standard aircraft first aid kit doesn't have the dressings for gunshot wounds - they'll need them at some stage in the future.....
and for his (unexpected!) views on guns in the cockpit! Good for you, Sir - it's not often I agree with you, but 100% with you this time!!A few thoughts:
When (& where) are these gun-toting Wyatt Earps (Earpesses) going to load (& unload) their little toys?
Will they be allowed to have a round fed into the chamber at all stages of flight?
What ammunition will be cleared for use?
What recurrent training will they have to do?
What if the other (unarmed) pilot says "No way, I don't want to fly with a gun in the cockpit"?
Don't want to know the security system, but how is TSA going to handle this at security checkpoints?
Oh well, time to take the kevlar vest out of storage & give it some frequent flyer miles when hopping around on internal USA flights!! Bet the standard aircraft first aid kit doesn't have the dressings for gunshot wounds - they'll need them at some stage in the future.....
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: canada
Posts: 170
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I like guns. I have several. Pistols, rifles, and a shotgun. I enjoy shooting them. Will never think about bringing any of them to work. I was in the military. Been trained to use guns. Still will never bring a gun to work. Pilots and guns don't mix.
If you want security in the cockpit, then don't let pilots carry guns. A much better solution would be to fly with air marshals, who's only job is to protect the aircraft and all its passengers. Someone mentioned earlier a senario about an F/A bringing in coffee, and a passenger rushed the cockpit. There would be no reaction time, and no pilot with a gun could save the day.
I travel through the USA regularely, and am disgusted by how I'm treated. I must take my bags and re check them. If I wanted to put something into, or take something out of my bag, I could. Once my bags are checked, I should not have to touch them until my final destination.
This world is being driven by knee jerk reactions, led by the most knee jerk nation in the world. Led by the most simple minded idiot who has ever taken office. Give me Bill Clinton any day. At least if he wanted to invade a nation, it would only be to look for his next sex partner.
If you want security in the cockpit, then don't let pilots carry guns. A much better solution would be to fly with air marshals, who's only job is to protect the aircraft and all its passengers. Someone mentioned earlier a senario about an F/A bringing in coffee, and a passenger rushed the cockpit. There would be no reaction time, and no pilot with a gun could save the day.
I travel through the USA regularely, and am disgusted by how I'm treated. I must take my bags and re check them. If I wanted to put something into, or take something out of my bag, I could. Once my bags are checked, I should not have to touch them until my final destination.
This world is being driven by knee jerk reactions, led by the most knee jerk nation in the world. Led by the most simple minded idiot who has ever taken office. Give me Bill Clinton any day. At least if he wanted to invade a nation, it would only be to look for his next sex partner.
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: Not a huge sand box but very nice winters anymore
Age: 57
Posts: 548
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Earl,
I flew with the USAF for a couple of years on exchange. Who exactly are the USAF protecting themselves from by carrying a firearm? Who is going to hyjack a C-130 or C-141???
FD security needs to be started well before any passenger arrives in the cabin. Let us be absolutely honest about security before 9/11. It was incredibly slack and was an open invitation to someone who wished to exploit it. Of course that statement is said with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. However, while I was down in the states, I can honestly say, I was staggered by how bad it was.
FD security is all about prevention. There is no way that anyone should be able to get onboard with a weapon. If they do then the flight deck door must remain closed regardless of what happens in the cabin. Arming us is not the answer, it is only a very dangerous band-aid solution.
I flew with the USAF for a couple of years on exchange. Who exactly are the USAF protecting themselves from by carrying a firearm? Who is going to hyjack a C-130 or C-141???
FD security needs to be started well before any passenger arrives in the cabin. Let us be absolutely honest about security before 9/11. It was incredibly slack and was an open invitation to someone who wished to exploit it. Of course that statement is said with the 20/20 vision of hindsight. However, while I was down in the states, I can honestly say, I was staggered by how bad it was.
FD security is all about prevention. There is no way that anyone should be able to get onboard with a weapon. If they do then the flight deck door must remain closed regardless of what happens in the cabin. Arming us is not the answer, it is only a very dangerous band-aid solution.